Getting back a tele....

[Snoweagle]

Hi guys. Well i'm planning to get back a tele lens to shoot events and stuffs but in a bit of dilemma on which to buy back. Currently i've 2 lenses in mind.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (my old lens)
Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I've $1K to spare.

 

[Anson]

I would go for the Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC, the extra reach and VC help alot in event shooting..

 

[lennyl]

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC.

Isn't this APS-C only? You have a 5D, right? It's in your sig and I still remember the thread where you were deciding and finally bought it.

 

[zac08]

Hi guys. Well i'm planning to get back a tele lens to shoot events and stuffs but in a bit of dilemma on which to buy back. Currently i've 2 lenses in mind.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (my old lens)
Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I've $1K to spare.

Get the Canon... why go for a superzoom and compromise on the picture quality?

 

[Snapperholic]

Would go for the canon~

 

[gymak90]

Hi guys. Well i'm planning to get back a tele lens to shoot events and stuffs but in a bit of dilemma on which to buy back. Currently i've 2 lenses in mind.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (my old lens)
Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I've $1K to spare.

Actually the image quality of the tamron is quite poor.
I would go with 70-200 F4. Because I've used 70-200 in similar situations before. Just that you can't go too close.

 

[Snoweagle]

Isn't this APS-C only? You have a 5D, right? It's in your sig and I still remember the thread where you were deciding and finally bought it.

Yeah using it with a 5D and i find that this is the ultimate walkaround lens. Tried this lens twice at 300mm f/6.3, ISO 800, 1/10 and still pretty sharp.

By the way the APS-C one only is the 18-270 VC becos it's Di II.

 

[Snoweagle]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. Yeah i've used the 70-200 f/4 before when i sold it not too long ago. Gd points of the 70-200 is that it's fast and tack sharp, constant aperture, internal zooming and L grade but no IS (the IS one still a bit costly for me now). The Tamron one is for its walkaround range with VC and i'm very impressed with the VC's performance and i find it a bit better than Canon's IS.

 

[Headshotzx]

Used 70-200 f/4IS or Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM II

 

[jvanhatten]

Hi guys. Well i'm planning to get back a tele lens to shoot events and stuffs but in a bit of dilemma on which to buy back. Currently i've 2 lenses in mind.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L (my old lens)
Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC.

Any other suggestions would be appreciated. I've $1K to spare.

Two new options for you: 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, or 135mm f/2.0 USM. They are a bit more than $1K, but you might be able to find a "used like new" lens. If you are going to spend that much money on a lens you might as well get the best in that range. f/4 or f/3.5 just won't cut it in low light settings and you will be sacrificing depth of field. I just went through this decision process, but with a wide angle lens. At the end of the day I bought the lens with f/2.8 and I haven't looked back!

Blog ~ http://vanhattenphotography.blogspot.com

Website ~ www.vanhattenphotography.com

 

[lennyl]

By the way the APS-C one only is the 18-270 VC becos it's Di II.

Ah, OK. Well, I wouldn't go for the superzoom. Are you considering the Canon 70-300mm IS? By most accounts it is a pretty decent zoom.

 

[Snoweagle]

Two new options for you: 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, or 135mm f/2.0 USM. They are a bit more than $1K, but you might be able to find a "used like new" lens. If you are going to spend that much money on a lens you might as well get the best in that range. f/4 or f/3.5 just won't cut it in low light settings and you will be sacrificing depth of field. I just went through this decision process, but with a wide angle lens. At the end of the day I bought the lens with f/2.8 and I haven't looked back!

Blog ~ http://vanhattenphotography.blogspot.com

Website ~ www.vanhattenphotography.com

I've used my ex 70-200 f/4 in low light conditions before and still ok. For me i don't need a f/2.8 lens and neither believe that it's so great too. I just buy what works for me.

 

[Snoweagle]

Ah, OK. Well, I wouldn't go for the superzoom. Are you considering the Canon 70-300mm IS? By most accounts it is a pretty decent zoom.

Nope. If like this i might as well get the 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[gunawan]

i'm facing same dilemna. Canon seems to have suspended its R&D while Sigma is going full steam wif more and more new and better products. Canon doesnt have any quality lens reaching 300mm wif the exception of the 70-300 is which is priced too high for its slow aperture. the other 70-200s are great, but not enuff reach. Canon guys ought to start waking up. Eagle's tamron superzoom sounds exciting, and I'll just include it in my wishlist which is currently filled wif sigma's range of super telezooms...

 

[Snoweagle]

i'm facing same dilemna. Canon seems to have suspended its R&D while Sigma is going full steam wif more and more new and better products. Canon doesnt have any quality lens reaching 300mm wif the exception of the 70-300 is which is priced too high for its slow aperture. the other 70-200s are great, but not enuff reach. Canon guys ought to start waking up. Eagle's tamron superzoom sounds exciting, and I'll just include it in my wishlist which is currently filled wif sigma's range of super telezooms...

Canon also has the 28-300 but quite pricey. The Tamron one is a lot cheaper but when i called CP today for quotation, seems like the Tamron one has gone up price. Was quoted $1030. :bigeyes:

 

[Garion]

To TS: Since you don't do PP on your pics, go for the Canon L....for punchier pics out of the cam. 70-200mm f4L IS prolly your best bet...its one of the best for 70-200mm range around now, and sharp to boot.

 

[Snoweagle]

To TS: Since you don't do PP on your pics, go for the Canon L....for punchier pics out of the cam. 70-200mm f4L IS prolly your best bet...its one of the best for 70-200mm range around now, and sharp to boot.

Well the 70-200 f/4 IS is still out from my budget but will keep it in my wishlist. ;p

Anyway thanks for all the comments and suggestions guys, i've decided to go for a much cheaper temporary alternative which i've ordered - Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro, only $240. :bsmilie: